The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1887-11-27
THE STANDARD OIL CASES.
81. ID. R~veksreiier Examined as 60 the stock
Hold By the Standard Trust.

Held by the stsndsrd Trust.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2e.--J. ID. Rockefeller,
Chairman OF the Standard Oil Trust, was OK
amined before the Interstate Commerce
Commission this morning in connection with
the Standard OIL cases. Counsel for complain
ants asked witness to produce a paper which
he had In hand giving a list Of the stocks Of the
various companies held In trust. Immediately
counsel for the Standard OIL Trust and for sew
eral OF the defendant railroads interposed OBJ
jections: the former on the ground that the
Standard OIL Trust was not a party to this case,
and that the production OF the paper would be
an unnecessary and irrelevant disclosure Of
the witnesses private affairs. The railroad at
torneys argued against encumbering the rec
ord with matters not already brought into this
case, insisting that nothing In the list in lues-
ton. except the Standard Oil Company Of Ken
lucky. the Standard Oil Company Of Ohio, and
the Waters Pierce Company Of st. Louis, was
other minor points of objection by the rail
roads which were urged vigorously, though
Mississippi Valley Railroad. Company, however.
stated hat his company interposed no obIcc-
Counsel for. complainant said that railroad
witnesses had disclosed the names Of a num-
Der OF consignors and consignees who. had re-
alleged to have been accorded to the Standard
on Company alone. and 1t was desirable to dis
Independent consienees and consignors were
not In fact u part Of the Standard OIL Trust.
The Commission retired to take tho subject
minutes later, the Chairman said:
The Commission is Of the opinion that 4 is conpetentt to
; ;ss s. sy III. T I'll s%% ST 5 any s 81 ssS nay s,'s of II, he s ''"sssa "a
Oh Company Of Ohio, Or Inc Waters. fierc. Gompsny Of
IT,! Ls ss. been e. q sea ans stns 81 s sSs Evidence C. :: sit a'y 'n sf .aip'
sTs Ssia > NJ. 81 trust .%s, b Ia. ps BEEN SPOKEN Of. and
also to show whether any Of the persons who appear in
thiA n q 4hinnnFa OF n a ngiunR mFa In INV
e% ssi:S :. n! sSa sp siiSsr 's II , + !. comp, comp.n sppf ,So ' si"@s 'n os
s ssIs iii Fl fI ins : ' sIl sSss 5. er cc amy sns Of ,t ,' So fu !, nsI1 . by
, ,ss, !. Il eo ssns51, ief Sg ;s Ms. 81, II Trs ss.en nnS Of w the s; Sap gns !.
s ssa .. III sS nv yyhs I i. 60 Centralized nassii iH By Ti," i, Tor the 's 'p sr:
ppsss Sf Bnst ~ sh Ss' frs. the =apms,sssiis ion a ne w ss' e. t, f.ss
shs advised. think the conSission can 60 in its ruiiRr.
The objection to the admission OF the list it.
within the rulings Of tho Commission.
., Witness the s,a said l IN reply to a :. series dn 81 inquiries;
Ohio, the Standard Oil Company of Kentucky.
the Camden GGonssolidated on Company II
Company OF st. Louis, and tho Consolidated
Tank Ia 4, Line C Gd9mTpany q Gincinnati was held by
we're mentioned BY counsel Tor eompiainant,
ground that these companies had not been
Witness said in substance that the stock Of
these companies Mas received from the
oWn0TS anu THO .ceTtlUcuteSO oil the trust issued
In exchanges; that the profits of the several
companies were not divided among the stock
holders, but was paid into the Trust. and then
divided among the holders of Trust certih-
Gates; also that the aggregate Of outstanding
certificates was about 500, 000.O 900.
Complainant counsel proposed to show that
the actual value Of the Trust certificates was
much greater. but this was excluded.
Witness said that between 70 and so per cent.
Of the oil refining business of the country was
done by his company, but he subsequently,
changed this estimate to G5 per cent. The
Trust certificates were held in all parts Of the
country.
In reply to- a query as to whether the Trusts
operations did not cover the country from the
Atlantic to the Pacific and from the Gulf to
the Arctic. witness renlied. after n few no
ments' delay, Not yet"
o cross-eXamination witness said that the
Trust had nothing whatever to do with the
making Of rates. all that being done by tho
subordinate companies.
Mr.. George Rice, the complainant. was sworn
and submitted q number OF papers bearing upon
all the economic features ofthe oil business, and
produced u mass OF correspondence which was
In evidence so far as 1t might prove
competent. He was examined and cross-ex-
amined at considerable length, but beyond the
statement that his profits were about IA cents
a barrel on oil delivered at his works in Ohio,
and the further statement. in contradiction to
that OF most OF the railroad men. that the con-
barrelled oil at their own expense, his testi-
mony up to the recess covered similar ground.